European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9858/07
by Majda VRATUŠA
against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2007,

Having regard to the settlement agreement signed by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Majda Vratuša, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ljubljana. She was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Lipej, a lawyer practising in Medvode. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant was a party to the civil proceedings which were terminated less than three months after the implementation of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.

THE LAW

The Court notes that, after the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that they had made a settlement proposal to the applicant.

By the settlement agreement signed by the State Attorney’s Office and the applicant, the former acknowledged a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and accepted to pay the applicant the non-pecuniary damage sustained and costs and expenses incurred. The applicant accepted the amount as a full compensation for the damage sustained due to the length of the proceedings and waived any further claims against the Republic of Slovenia in respect of these complaints.

On 17 June 2011 the applicant informed the Court that she had reached a settlement with the State Attorney’s Office and that she wished to withdraw her application introduced before the Court.

The Court takes note that following the settlement reached between the parties the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant wishes to withdraw her application. It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Stephen Phillips Ganna Yudkivska
Deputy Registrar President